Back during the campaign of 2008, many people kept trying to compare Obama to past presidents like "Kennedy" or "FDR". One of the most interesting comparisons was that Obama was "Our" Reagan(examples hereand here). The idea was that Reaganbrought with him an era of Conservative governance and that Obama would do the opposite and bring in an era of Liberal governance.
So why didn't it happen? Well, the simple answer may be that "we're just not ready" for a liberal government... yet. If you believe that history repeats itself, we could be another 10 to 14 years away from a liberal in the Whitehouse who governs like a liberal.
To see this, we have to review the history of Presidents since WWII. Follow me after the fold if you want to see what history repeating itself looks like.
FDR\Truman(1932 - 1952): Let's call this an era of Democratic dominance. This represents Democrats winning several elections and issuing in a new political philosophy(the New Deal) or, as some historians call it, the Liberal Consensus.
Eisenhower(1952-1960): After years of being dominated in elections by Democrats, the Republicans moderated and ran a true war hero. What did this Republican do once they had the presidency and the Senate? Well, they governed to the left of... Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama. If you don't believe me, MeMeMeMeMe had a great diary about the platform of the 1956 Republicans you can check out. Amongst other things, Eisenhower signed civil rights legislation(though weak), didn't cut taxes, and introduced a gigantic government program known as the interstate highways. Despite being a Republican, Eisenhower acknowledged and governed under the Liberal Consensus. He didn't govern as far to the left as a liberal democrat, but liberal goals were still being advanced.
JFK\Johnson(1960-1968): After an incredibly close presidential election, The Kennedy and then Johnson administration gave liberal democrats their last shot at expanding and solidifying the New Deal programs... and they did. Amongst other things, they expanded civil rights bills, passed Medicaid and Medicare, and expanded role for the U.N. all happened in these eight years.
Johnson's reelection in 1964 can be looked in two different lights. One is as the pinnacle of the liberal consensus. A self-described liberal democrat electorally destroyed a self-described conservative republican and went on to expand and solidify the New Deal ideals. The other way to look at it is the beginning of the downfall of the liberal consensus. Barry Goldwater's campaign, in many ways, re-introduced conservatism to America. He captured the hearts of future conservative leaders and rallied the dormant, beaten down, conservatives of the past. His bookand his campaign inspired conservatives to take the party over from liberal(and "moderate") Republicans. The election was also significant because it marked the first time that the deep south didn't vote for the Democratic candidate - a fact not lost on the next Republican candidate.
Nixon\Ford(1968-1976): Nixon did some awful things and may have hated "liberals" more than he hated minorities and Jews, but many of his policies (successes and failures) were still rooted in the liberal consensus.
*He grew big government when he helped create the EPA and OSHA
*He "talked" to our enemies when he visited China.
*He was soft on crime when his "war on drugs" concentrated more on treatment than jail.
(and don't even get me started on his tax policy!)
All of these things are anathema to modern conservatives. I am not suggesting that Nixon was a liberal himself(I'll leave that to Noam Chomsky), just that his administration was still operating under the liberal consensus. Ford's short lived presidency is barely worth mentioning other than the fact that his "liberal Republican" credentials are mostly accepted.
The most important gift Nixon gave to the conservative movement was "The Southern Strategy". In both elections, he showed future Conservative Republicans an electoral strategy that would define the Republican party for years to come. Twice he was able to win large parts of the south while holding on to other traditionally Republican states. That strategy has been at the heart of every Republican presidential campaign since.
Carter(1976-1980): Carter's election showed that Democrats still knew how to get elected, but not necessarily how to govern. The Carter administration was given a mess to deal with(Energy crises, high inflation, and high unemployment). Carter was not able to bring together a governing coalition to deal with these problems. He was facing a feistier(and more conservative) opposition party, at the same time he was facing a restless liberal wing of the democratic party. All of these things conspired to make him a one-term president with few notable accomplishments. I wouldn't bash Carter for this, I doubt few, if anyone, could've governed successfully given the conditions of the time.
Ronald Reagan\Bush I(1980-1992):
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
-Ronald Reagan
The Reagan administration not only ended the liberal consensus, but danced on it's grave and urinated on it's tombstone. Expanded military, cuts in social programs, regressive taxation, and laissez-faire redubbed as "deregulation" were just some of the things that became the new norm. Even when Reagan and Bush appeared unpopular in the polls, Democrats still couldn't seem to beat them. Sure, Dems still controlled the house, but as we saw in 2006, that don't mean diddly when you are still carrying a lot of conservative members. Few liberal policies ever managed to make it through then or since. In fact, liberalism was under such an assault that most liberal energy was spent defending liberal policies under conservative assault. In many ways, this was the conservative version of a "new deal" and the point where our story starts repeating itself.
It was during this time that the "Democratic Leadershhip Council" was founded. The stated goal was to moderate the party and win back the presidency by running a ticket of Southern Democrats.
Bill Clinton(1992-2000):
"The Era of Big Government is Over"
-Bill Clinton
The DLC came through for the Democratic party and finally got a democrat back in the white house. But just like Eisenhower governed under the Liberal consensus, Bill Clinton governed under the new conservative consensus. While liberals made a few victories around this time(more progressive tax code and restored environmental policies), conservatives won a lot too during this time. Free Trade became the new buzz word symbolized by the singing of the NAFTA treaty. Welfare "reform" was passed. Even some deregulation was slipped into the mix(e.g. Glass-Steagel repeal). And who can forget about the failed attempt at health care reform? While I believe Clinton was and is a liberal, he still governed under the new conservative consensus. He was the democratic version of Eisenhower.
George W. Bush(2000-2008):
"Fool me once, shame on... shame on you... eh, eh... if fooled you can't get fooled again."
-George W. Bush
Like JFK, Bush came into office after a very close election. Also, like JFK and Johnson expanded the New Deal, everything that Reagan and Bush I started was finished by Bush II and his Republican congress. New Regressive Tax cuts, a foreign policy based entirely on having the largest military, even more deregulation, a "pro-business" environmental policy, etc... etc... All of the things that Conservatives and the governing conservative consensus stood for. It's curious to note that both Johnson and Bush left office with low approval ratings and an increasingly unpopular war.
Just like the election of 1964 can be looked at in 2 different lights, 2004, can be seen in 2 different lights. In 2004, George W. Bush, one of the most inept presidents still beat the Democratic candidate who was a war hero. Not only that, he also managed to expand his majorities in congress at the same time. It was a crushing blow to Democrats and many of us watched as resigned democrats let Bush tear away the social safety net of the country. However, we can also look at this election as the awakening of a new, young progressive movement. For years, many future progressives were growing increasingly wary of conservative policies. In 2004, a democratic presidential candidate, Howard Dean, tapped in and organized that energy into a campaign juggernaut. Just like many historians look at Barry Goldwater's campaign as the rallying point for the future conservative movement, I think historians will look back at Howard Dean's campaign as the beginning of a lasting progressive movement.
Also interesting to note is that both in 2000, and 2004, Democrats could've won in both elections without winning a singe southern state. A fact not lost on the next candidate.
Barack Obama(2008-20XX):
"We are the ones we've been waiting for."
-Barack Obama
Obama is not a conservative. Nor is he passing particularly conservative legislation. However, he is working on some very "moderate" stuff.
On Climate Change he favors cap & trade over a carbon tax.
On the stimulus package, he sacrificed infrastructure for more tax cuts.
On Health Care, he advocated stricter regulation on private companies instead of a public option or single payer. Now he's done some great things, but it's hard to argue that he isn't governing under the conservative consensus. Which brings me, finally, to the title of this diary. Obama is our Nixon. Like Nixon was the 2nd (and last) Republican to govern under the liberal consensus, Obama is the 2nd (and hopefully last) Democrat to govern under the conservative consensus.
Also like Nixon, Obama's greatest gift to the progressive movement won't be his policies, it'll be his electoral strategy. In 1968, Nixon proved Republicans can win the South. In 2008, Obama proved that Democrats can win without the south. He put together a winning coalition that no longer depended on winning over rural, white, conservative, Christians. Even though he won some southern states, he still could've won the presidency without them.
So, is history repeating itself? Is Obama "our" Nixon? The only way to prove the theory is to make some predictions and then wait and see if they prove to be true. So, here's my list of predictions:
- Obama will continue to govern by passing very moderate policies.
- Republicans will run a very conservative nominee in 2012(just like Dems ran a very liberal nominee against Nixon in 1972)
- Obama will win in a landslide against the Republican nominee in 2012.(just like Nixon did in 1972)
- Republicans will run a moderate in 2016 and win.
- The moderate Republican will find himself completely unable to govern.
- Democrats will run a real, walk the walk, progressive in 2020. He'll win and issue in a new era of a progressive consensus.